Dismissed

Sardar Singh v. Chairman Hindustan Coppser Lim

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2014CW/5033/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the deduction of money and demand for a departmental enquiry despite the employee's prior acceptance of debt via a committee report. The court rejected the petition due to the employee's acceptance of recovery and suppression of material facts in the petition, dismissing it on conduct grounds.

What did the court decide?

the stay application and writ petition are dismissed, anticipating the writ petition could be dismissed with costs for suppression of fact.

Sardar Singh Vs Chairman Hindustan Coppser… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5033/2001 Sardar Singh Vs. The Chariman, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkatta & Ors.

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5033/2001

¶5

Sardar Singh Vs. The Chariman, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkatta & Ors.

¶6

Date of Order : 08^th January, 2014

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶8

Mr.Mahendra Singh Gurjar, for the petitioner/s. Mr.Ajeet Bhandari, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Anshudhar Singh Rathore, for the respondent/s.

¶9

BY THE COURT:

¶10

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 04.01.2001 whereby respondents deducted a sum of Rs.1,39,646.29/-.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order was passed without holding enquiry and ascertaining the amount alleged to be due against the petitioner. The petitioner sought and granted voluntary retirement. The physical verification of stock was conducted after relieving, thus petitioner did not sign the document for ascertaining physical balance of the store. He was not extended due benefit of voluntary retirement, thus asked to volunteer for constitution of committee. The committee submitted report, on which, signature of petitioner was taken under pressure. He had even agree for recovery due to financial crunches. The way, the respondents have recovered the amount is illegal, thus impugned order may be set aside with the direction to the respondents to refund the amount. A reference of judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. B.L. Yadav reported in RLW 2001 (4) Raj. 359 and also in the case of Gopal Lal Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2004 WLC (UC) 531 has been given.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand submits that application of petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted subject to physical verification of the store. At the time of relieving, physical balance was not matching with the ledger balance of the store. The petitioner agreed for constitution of committee to find out the

¶13

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5033/2001

¶14

¶15

Sardar Singh Vs. The Chariman, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkatta & Ors.

¶16

shortage. The committee accordingly conducted inspection and submitted its report. It was duly signed by the petitioner. He had even agreed for recovery of amount found short. In view of acceptance of recovery, benefits were extended after deducting the amount found due against the petitioner. Once an employee accepts shortage of articles in the store and allow recovery as a consequence thereof, no enquiry is required to be conducted by the respondents. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding recovery without holding enquiry is not tenable. If the petitioner would not have agreed for constitution of committee so as recovery, the respondents could have conducted departmental enquiry into the matter. The aforesaid is not required when an employee accepts his charge or burden to pay amount as found recoverable against him. In view of above, challenge to the action of the respondents is not tenable. The petitioner is otherwise guilty of suppression of fact, inasmuch as, reference of document at Annex.F submitted along with reply has not been given while filing the writ petition. The aforesaid document is relevant because petitioner had agreed for recovery of amount. Looking to conduct of the petitioner, the writ petition should be dismissed on the aforesaid ground itself.

¶17

So far as allegation of pressure on the petitioner is concerned, it is nothing but an afterthought. If the petitioner was pressed for his signature on the report so also for recovery, no one prevented the petitioner to immediately made a protest after getting the amount. The allegation of putting pressure has been raised in the writ petition filed in the month of October, 2001 whereas due amount was received by the petitioner in the month of February, 2000 itself. If an employee is put under pressure to sign a document, should immediately make a protest after getting due amount. The petitioner has failed to do so, thus allegation of putting pressure is nothing but an afterthought of the petitioner.

¶18

I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

¶19

The facts narrated above reveal that an application for voluntary

¶20

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5033/2001 Sardar Singh Vs. The Chariman, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkatta & Ors.

¶21

¶22

retirement was moved by the petitioner and even accepted by the respondents. The petitioner was relieved on 30^th October, 1999 and a day before, he was asked to complete all the formalities regarding handing over of charge of the store. The respondents should have asked the petitioner to get verification of articles of store by taking action in advance, moreso when, there was variation in the items in physical balance with the ledger balance. The respondents, however, asked the petitioner to make verification, which was refused by the petitioner. The respondents in their order dated 07.02.2000 have mentioned about physical verification in the presence of petitioner and he was also allowed to look into the relevant document of store before obtaining No Dues Certificate. The respondents thereafter constituted a committee, which has submitted report. The petitioner signed the report and even endorsement for recovery on the letter dated 07^th February, 2000 (Annex.F filed along with reply).

¶23

In view of the fact above,the question now comes as to whether departmental enquiry is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case or not?

¶24

I find that departmental enquiry into the matter is required when there is denial of charge. If the facts of this case are looked into, the petitioner has not only signed the committee report but even agreed to get recovery of due amount. Once acceptance to the report so as to recovery is given by the petitioner, no departmental enquiry is required to be conducted. The burden of enquiry is to ascertain the guilt of employee, who has charged with the allegation. The aforesaid is not required when allegation is accepted by the employee. In view of above, this Court is unable to accept the first ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

So far as allegation of putting pressure to get signature on the report so as for recovery is concerned, it is nothing but an afterthought of the petitioner. If the respondents put a pressure on the petitioner to sign the report of the committee or even for recovery, no one prevented the petitioner to make a protest then and there or immediately

¶26

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5033/2001 Sardar Singh Vs. The Chariman, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkatta & Ors.

¶27

¶28

after receipt of amount. The petitioner kept silence in regard to allegation raised above, inasmuch as, no letter was sent by him till filing of the writ petition to show that signature on the report and for recovery were obtained under pressure. In view of above, allegation for putting pressure by the respondent/s is not made out.

¶29

The question now comes regarding conduct of petitioner. While filing writ petition, a material fact in respect of document at Annex.F (filed along with reply) has been suppressed. The aforesaid letter shows endorsement of the petitioner for recovery of the amount found due against him. The document aforesaid was issued by the respondents but at the bottom, the petitioner made endorsement for recovery, thus aforesaid was well within the knowledge of petitioner. He did not make a mention about the aforesaid while filing the writ petition. When the document aforesaid was submitted by the respondents along with reply, in rejoinder, the petitioner shown endorsement of recovery to be under pressure. The document at Annex.F is material and goes in the route of the case but suppressed by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner is such which warrants dismissal of the petition on the aforesaid ground itself. The petitioner is in fact guilty of suppression of material fact from the Court while filing the writ petition.

¶30

So far as judgment referred by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, that was altogether on different facts and circumstances. The fact regarding constitution of committee followed by report and endorsement for recovery by the employee does not exist in the case cited by the counsel.

¶31

A further fact regarding endorsement for recovery by the employee is also not there in the judgment referred to above. If an employee does not agree for recovery or disputes the amount so determined, the department is under an obligation to hold enquiry but aforesaid is not required where employee has agreed for recovery after endorsing the report showing shortage of material in the store. Thus, none of the judgment/s, referred by the petitioner, has application to the facts of this case.

¶32

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5033/2001 Sardar Singh Vs. The Chariman, Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkatta & Ors.

¶33

¶34

In view of above and keeping in mind the discussion made above, I do not find that petitioner is entitled for relief made in the writ petition, rather keeping in mind conduct of petitioner for suppression of fact, the writ petition could have been dismissed with cost. However, taking a liberal view, this court is not imposing cost but the stay application and writ petition are dismissed in view of discussion made above.

¶35

(M.N. BHANDARI), J.

¶36

S/No.3 Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶37

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶38

Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.

Sardar Singh v. Chairman Hindustan Coppser Lim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Singh v. Chairman Hindustan Coppser Lim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Singh Krishnia and Anr. Vs R C S a T and Ors.

Raghuveer Singh Sahiwala Vs R S R T C and Anr.

Gahdsi Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ishwari Janjani Vs J v v N L Jaipur

Bal Krishan Meena Vs Institute of Bank

Shambhu Dayal Yogi Vs State Irrigation Departors